PROVERO@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil (Josh Rovero) (09/01/89)
What appears to be the "official" release of Workbench 1.3.2 was
posted on Genie by Andy Finkel recently, and is starting to show up on
local BBSs. Two ZOO files, totalling about 117K.
I haven't downloaded it yet, and no, I don't know where it can be FTP'd.
Josh Rovero Internet: PRovero@@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil
Packet Radio: KK1D@@WD4MIZ
================-----------------------------------------------=============
-------monsoor@csusac.csus.edu (Matt Monsoor) (09/03/89)
I have heard about the upgrade to WorkBench 1.3 and some of our members have copies (one each member). Is there somthing wrong with posting the upgrade on our club board? Does it cost to upgrade??? How can 'I' get a copy??
maniac@arrakis.nevada.edu (ERIC SCHWERTFEGER) (09/04/89)
[Eat hot ASCII, line eater!]
WB 1.3.2 is currently posted to CompuServe, and I've heard that it is
also on Genie and PeopleLink. However, it specifically states in the
licensing agreement that you are not to disemminate it electronically any
further.
For those that don't know what is in 1.3.2, there are no new programs,
and most of the changes are bug fixes and improvements to existing programs.
DiskCopy is a perfect example. It now defaults to Validate, uses Fast Memory
if not enough chip memory is available, and will copy a disk with only one
swap. Opps, forgot that it will also read an entire disk into memory and
then make multiple copies.
Also, FastFileSystem has had a bug fixed, serial.device has had a
bug fixed and also made faster, setpatch has been updated, etc.
Here is a list of the contents of the wb132.zoo file
Archive dl:wb132.zoo:
Length CF Size Now Date Time
-------- --- -------- --------- --------
976 27% 716 10 Mar 89 16:34:20 System/FastMemFirst
12840 37% 8109 30 Jun 89 17:39:20 System/Format
1792 33% 1198 30 Mar 89 22:29:40 System/NoFastMem
4060 33% 2703 15 Mar 89 10:24:22 System/SetMap
8436 35% 5443 16 Mar 89 11:28:20 Utilities/CMD
4408 29% 3129 29 Mar 89 11:28:14 Utilities/ClockPtr
7036 35% 4606 10 Mar 89 16:25:16 c/DiskDoctor
1972 23% 1512 10 Mar 89 16:24:54 c/Eval
2804 32% 1910 10 Mar 89 16:24:26 c/LoadWB
5604 32% 3799 5 May 89 10:13:06 c/Mount
4884 31% 3361 10 Mar 89 17:19:12 c/SetClock
5088 27% 3715 12 May 89 19:58:30 c/SetPatch
26964 31% 18529 10 Mar 89 15:30:12 devs/printer.device
5292 26% 3898 26 Apr 89 19:25:34 devs/serial.device
16380 42% 9489 30 Jun 89 17:00:36 libs/info.library
2448 32% 1671 4 May 89 18:07:36 l/Aux-Handler
12248 18% 10015 9 May 89 09:33:20 l/FastFileSystem
3332 31% 2299 29 Mar 89 17:27:46 l/Pipe-Handler
4212 36% 2701 29 Mar 89 14:09:34 l/Speak-Handler
361 44% 203 8 Aug 89 20:33:24 License.info
361 44% 203 8 Aug 89 20:33:06 ReadMe.info
17756 36% 11298 9 Aug 89 09:54:06 System/DiskCopy
5450 42% 3153 17 Aug 89 11:31:40 ReadMe
9261 43% 5302 17 Aug 89 12:03:04 LICENSE
404 26% 299 8 Aug 89 19:33:10 libs/version.library
-------- --- -------- --------- --------
164369 34% 109261 25 files
Eric Schwertfeger, UNLV, maniac@arrakis.nevada.edu lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (09/04/89)
In <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: >I'm sure that we would have heard by now if the WB132.ZOO was not legit, >but I would rest easier if someone from C= would confirm that indeed, >this upgrade has been released. It just seems a little odd that there >has been no "official" mention of it. The license certainly reads like >a C= document ;-), but could someone please confirm? Thanks. Well, I'm not from Commodore, but speaking from the position of sysop on Compuserve's Amiga forums, I can tell you that it is indeed 'legit'. In our case, it was given by Andy Finkel to Greg Givler, who currently runs the Commodore forum on Compuserve, and Greg uploaded it. It is being made available through Compuserve, Bix, GEnie and PLink, and is not to be distributed further electronically. Yes, that means you cannot post it to BBSs or aother networks. This is a CBM restriction, so don't yell at the reps of the 4 services mentioned. -larry -- The Mac? Oh, that's just like a computer, only slower. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/04/89)
In article <19679@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <1989Sep3.015931.9016@csusac.csus.edu> monsoor@csusac.csus.edu (Matt Monsoor) writes: >|I have heard about the upgrade to WorkBench 1.3 and some of our members have >|copies (one each member). Is there somthing wrong with posting the upgrade >|on our club board? Does it cost to upgrade??? How can 'I' get a copy?? > >WB 1.3.2 was posted on BIX's closed Developer Conference and was marked NOT >FOR DISTRIBUTION for the simple reason that it has not passed QA testing yet. >Some bozo developer posted it on a BBS. It is clearly illegal to do so. The above actually referred to WB 1.3.1 beta. WB 1.3.2 was posted on BIX's 'open' developer conference. It comes with an "interesting" software license agreement, which I am enclosing here for your edification :-) It is rumored that it is closely resembling Apple's software licenses. Sorry for the foulup. Enjoy. Marco -------------- SINGLE COMPUTER END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE USING THIS SOFTWARE. ANY DOWNLOADING, REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THE SOFTWARE WILL CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM YOU SHOULD DISCONTINUE THIS TRANSMISSION. I. LICENSE Commodore-Amiga, Inc. ("Commodore") makes this Software available subject to the following non-exclusive license. You are responsible for selecting the appropriate Software (computer programs and related documentation) to meet your needs, and for its installation, use and results. A. This license allows you to: 1. Use the Software only on a single AMIGA computer. You must obtain a supplementary license from Commodore before using the Software in connection with any other use; 2. Download the Software only on media that is compatible with the AMIGA; 3. Make one copy of the Software in any machine readable form for backup purposes. The Software is protected by United States copyright law. You must reproduce the Commodore copyright notice on any copy of the Software; and 4. Configure the Software for your own use by adding or removing fonts, desk accessories and/or device drivers. THE SOFTWARE MAY BE USED ONLY FOR PERSONAL OR NON-COMMERCIAL USES ON AMIGA COMPUTERS AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT AN EXPRESS LICENSE FROM COMMODORE (available from Commodore's Software Licensing Department). B. Commodore reserves all rights not expressly granted to you above. C. The following activities are expressly prohibited by this license: 1. The Software contains trade secrets and in order to protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to a human perceivable form. You agree not to directly or indirectly divulge to any person or entity the Software, or any trade secrets related to the Software, until such time as Commodore makes such information available to the public without restriction. YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREE NOT TO DECOMPILE, MODIFY, NETWORK, RENT, LEASE, LOAN, SELL OR DISTRIBUTE THE SOFTWARE, OR ANY COPY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A COPY OF THE SOFTWARE OR UNAUTHORIZED TRANSFER OF ANY COPY OF THE SOFTWARE MAY SUBJECT YOU TO A LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. 2. You agree and certify that neither the Software nor any other technical data received from Commodore or the direct product thereof, is being or will be downloaded, shipped, transferred or reexported, directly or indirectly to Country Groups Q, S, W, Y, or Z (see Attachment 1) or Afghanistan or the People's Republic of China, without prior written approval from Commodore and either a validated export license or written permission from the U.S. Office of Export Administration. 3. You agree and certify that you will not use, ship, transfer, or reexport any Software or other technical data, or any direct product thereof, related to any commodity that will be used directly or indirectly in the following activities (or in the training of personnel for such activities), whether or not it is specifically designed or modified for such activities; (i) designing, developing, fabricating or testing nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; (ii) designing, constructing, fabricating, or operating the following facilities, or components for such facilities; (a) the chemical processing or irradiated special nuclear or source material; (b) the production of heavy water; (c) the separation of isotopes of source and special nuclear material; (d) the fabrication of nuclear reactor fuel containing plutonium. II. TERM The license is effective until terminated. You may terminate it at any time by destroying the Software together with all copies. The license will also terminate if you fail to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement. You agree upon such termination to destroy all copies of the Software. III. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ITS MERCHANTABILITY OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU (AND NOT COMMODORE OR A COMMODORE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. Commodore does not warrant that the functions contained in the Software will meet your requirements or that the operation of the Software will be uninterrupted or error free or that defects in the Software will be corrected. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. IV. LIMITATION OF REMEDIES IN NO EVENT WILL COMMODORE OR ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST SAVINGS OR OTHER INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE ANY SOFTWARE EVEN IF COMMODORE OR AN AUTHORIZED COMMODORE REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. Commodore's liability to you for actual damages for any cause whatsoever, and regardless of the form of the action, will be limited to the money paid to Commodore for the Software that caused the damages or that is the subject matter of, or is directly related to, the cause of action. V. GOVERNMENT END-USERS If this Software is acquired by or on behalf of a unit or agency of the United States Government this provision applies. This Software: (a) was developed at private expense, and no part of it was developed with government funds, (b) is a trade secret of Commodore for all purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, (c) is "commercial computer software" subject to limited utilization as provided in the contract between the vendor and the governmental entity and (d) in all respects is proprietary data belonging solely to Commodore. For units of the Department of Defense (DoD), this Software is sold only with "Restricted Rights" as that term is defined in the DoD Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 52.227-7013 (b) (3) (ii) and: Use, duplication or disclosure is subject to restrictions as set forth in subdivision (b) (3) (ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at 52.227-7013. Manufacturer: Commodore, 1200 Wilson Drive, West Chester, PA 19380. If this Software was acquired under a GSA Schedule the Government has agreed to refrain from changing or removing any insignia or lettering from the Software that is provided or from producing copies of manuals or disks (except one copy for backup purposes) and: 1. Title to and ownership of this Software and documentation and any reproductions thereof shall remain with Commodore-Amiga, Inc. 2. Use of this Software and documentation shall be limited to the facility for which it is acquired; and 3. If use of the Software is discontinued to the installation specified in the purchase/delivery order and the Government desires to use it at another location, it may do so by giving prior written notice to Commodore-Amiga, Inc., specifying the type of computer and new location site. Governmental personnel using this Commodore Software, other than under a DoD contract or GSA Schedule, are hereby on notice that use of this Software is subject to restrictions which are the same as or similar to those specified above. VI. GENERAL Any attempt to network, rent lease, or sublicense the Software or to transfer any of the rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement is void. This Agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, except for that body of laws dealing with conflict of laws. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, that provision will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. RJG/908:smk ATTACHMENT 1 (Note that this list is current as of January 28, 1987. You should check with the Office of Export Administration for any subsequent updates or revisions.) Country Group Q Country Group Y Romania Albania Bulgaria Czechoslovakia Country Group S Estonia Libya German Democratic Republic Laos Country Group W Latvia Hungary Lithuania Poland Mongolian People's Republic USSR Country Group Z Cuba Cambodia North Korea Vietnam ----- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) (09/04/89)
I'm sure that we would have heard by now if the WB132.ZOO was not legit, but I would rest easier if someone from C= would confirm that indeed, this upgrade has been released. It just seems a little odd that there has been no "official" mention of it. The license certainly reads like a C= document ;-), but could someone please confirm? Thanks. Ned Schultz nschultz@polyslo.calpoly.edu
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (09/04/89)
| SINGLE COMPUTER END-USER | SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT | | 3. You agree and certify that you will not use, ship, | transfer, or reexport any Software or other technical data, or any | direct product thereof, related to any commodity that will be used | directly or indirectly in the following activities (or in the | training of personnel for such activities), whether or not it is | specifically designed or modified for such activities; | | (i) designing, developing, fabricating or | testing nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; Oh shit. Anybody wanna buy a used 2000? With Geiger counter? -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (09/04/89)
In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
it is closely resembling Apple's software licenses.
I'll say. Is this a joke or something? I find it really funny and a
waste of bytes....
PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE USING THIS
SOFTWARE. ANY DOWNLOADING, REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THE
SOFTWARE WILL CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU
DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM YOU SHOULD DISCONTINUE THIS TRANSMISSION.
What a strange sort of shrink-wrap license....
1. Use the Software only on a single AMIGA computer.
You must obtain a supplementary license from Commodore before
using the Software in connection with any other use;
Pretty funny, considering a virtually infinite number of copies may be
downloaded from wherever it's posted....
2. Download the Software only on media that is
compatible with the AMIGA;
This is just plain stupid. I'll most likely download this the same way
I download everything else, if it's posted to the net- ftp it to an
MS-DOS 3" floppy and use PcPatch to dump it to my local system. Of
course, with PcPatch, MS-DOS disks could theoretically be considered
Amiga-compatible. They're certainly Amiga-readable/writable; with
Crossdos they are certainly Amiga-compatible.
3. Make one copy of the Software in any machine
readable form for backup purposes. The Software is protected by
United States copyright law. You must reproduce the Commodore
copyright notice on any copy of the Software; and
What if I download it fifty times onto different disks? Download it by
proxy for my friends without access to the Net orr BBSes?
4. Configure the Software for your own use by adding
or removing fonts, desk accessories and/or device drivers.
Thank you, Massuh, you are too kind.
the public without restriction. YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREE NOT TO
DECOMPILE, MODIFY, NETWORK, RENT, LEASE, LOAN, SELL OR DISTRIBUTE
UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A COPY OF THE SOFTWARE OR UNAUTHORIZED
TRANSFER OF ANY COPY OF THE SOFTWARE MAY SUBJECT YOU TO A LAWSUIT
FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
That's nice. It's also been circumvented before quite legally. As for
the distribution bit, I'm not going to say a word.
[You better not use it for the following uses:]
(i) designing, developing, fabricating or
testing nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices;
[etc... no nukes!!]
While I agree wholeheartedly with this anti-nuke stance, my question
is: why? This sounds like some random longhaired highschool kid like I
was a few years ago wrote it.
governmental entity and (d) in all respects is proprietary data belonging
solely to Commodore.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but to think you somehow can
control it is even more dangerous, or at least foolish. They might
legally own it, but I'm sorry, there are just hundreds of people in
the government and out who'll probably dissassemble it to their
heart's content.
Any attempt to network, rent lease, or sublicense the Software
or to transfer any of the rights, duties or obligations under this
Agreement is void.
Yeah, right. Does this make it impossible for me to take my 18
Novell-networked A2500's and put these 15 or 20 measly files on the
server?
If Commodore starts putting stuff like this on all their software,
I'll probably chuck my 500 and get a 386 clone....(ick!) I'm sure I
can find lots of non-mersh software updates without such
silliness.....
Jeesh. Between this and the brilliant idea of starting heavy
advertising before 1.4 and the 3000 are ready with emphasis on the
Commodore name...... I've just gotta wonder....
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS>
Pi-Rho America \\ /// Sick feeling, sick reasoning,
2346 15th St. \\ /// sick challenging, la la la la.....
Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order
(518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rushlindam@sactoh0.UUCP (Linda C. Marquess) (09/04/89)
Would someone from CATS please let me know if WB 1.3.2 may be
posted on local BBSs? The license explicitly states it MAY NOT
be redistributed in any way. It states that it may be downloaded,
does that mean it may be uploaded?
Lindamike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (09/05/89)
In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <19679@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>In article <1989Sep3.015931.9016@csusac.csus.edu> monsoor@csusac.csus.edu (Matt Monsoor) writes: >>|I have heard about the upgrade to WorkBench 1.3 and some of our members have >>|copies (one each member). Is there somthing wrong with posting the upgrade >>|on our club board? Does it cost to upgrade??? How can 'I' get a copy?? >> >>WB 1.3.2 was posted on BIX's closed Developer Conference and was marked NOT >>FOR DISTRIBUTION for the simple reason that it has not passed QA testing yet. >>Some bozo developer posted it on a BBS. It is clearly illegal to do so. > I just got my Amiga 500 from CATS and received WB 1.3.2. I havn't been able to discover what the differences were, but I'm sure that they're minor. Also the 500 came with the Fat Agnus (or so says the manual, a friend has the computer right now, and I have not popped it open to see what rev the motherboard is). And I was delighted to see that they finally heard me back there. Right when the 500 came out, I dropped a note to Paul Higgenbothem (sp?) and suggested that C= stick a simple handle on the box to turn it into a carrying case. Well, hot dang! They dun did it! Everyone who has had to haul a 500 thru LAX going to a show knows what a pain it can be, and the little handle sure will make it easier. Attention to details like that really count. *** mike smithwick *** "Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (09/05/89)
[[[[[[[ for industrial strength line-eaters ]]]]]]]]]]
One more note about WB 1.3.2. The dates on my disk are August 8.
:
:
:
:
:
:
*** mike smithwick ***
"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]ugdill@joey.cs.buffalo.edu (Peter Dill) (09/05/89)
In article <7056@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > [You better not use it for the following uses:] > (i) designing, developing, fabricating or > testing nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; > [etc... no nukes!!] > >While I agree wholeheartedly with this anti-nuke stance, my question >is: why? This sounds like some random longhaired highschool kid like I >was a few years ago wrote it. I hope that this isn't some stupid tree-hugger attitude but I think that they are trying to protect themselves from the case where some kind of system software failure causes an accident and they end up getting hit by upteen lawsuits. In my opinion the money for this busy work for the lawyers could be better spent on hiring people to mop Dave Haynie's brow while he's working on the 3000. Peter Dill ugdill@sunybcs | In /// | "As a rule of course, we just ugdill@joey.cs.buffalo.edu | /// |don't care. " v114nj32@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | /// |- _Logical Design of Digital ..!rutgers!sunybcs!ugdill |\\\/// We | Circuits_ | \XX/Trust| C.M.Reeves -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Dill ugdill@sunybcs | In /// | "As a rule of course, we just ugdill@joey.cs.buffalo.edu | /// |don't care. "
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (09/05/89)
> 4. Configure the Software for your own use by adding > or removing fonts, desk accessories and/or device drivers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Desk Accessories? Desk Accessories? We don't need no steenkin Desk Accessories! Marco, I'd say it bears more than a passing resemblance to something Apple would write. Maybe someone should let the new ex-Apple marketroids now working at CBM know that the Amiga has a multitasking OS? (Still, all heckling aside, if this update is for real, I'm sure glad that it was decided to allow electronic distribution. Also, isn't this a first for the Amiga? A maintenance release between OS revisions? Things must be a changing in West Chester.) -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!i-core!worsel!blaine (My Amiga running uucp) "Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC."
robertl@bucsb.UUCP (Robert La Ferla) (09/05/89)
In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > 3. You agree and certify that you will not use, ship, > transfer, or reexport any Software or other technical data, or any > direct product thereof, related to any commodity that will be used > directly or indirectly in the following activities (or in the > training of personnel for such activities), whether or not it is > specifically designed or modified for such activities; > > (i) designing, developing, fabricating or > testing nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; > (ii) designing, constructing, fabricating, or > operating the following facilities, or components for > such facilities; > > (a) the chemical processing or irradiated > special nuclear or source material; > (b) the production of heavy water; > (c) the separation of isotopes of source > and special nuclear material; > (d) the fabrication of nuclear reactor fuel > containing plutonium. > So much for Deluxe Nuclear Construction Set! __ / \ / __/_ /___/ __ /_ __ __ / robertl%bucsf@bu-cs.bu.edu / \ '_' /_/ |_- / ' /
givler@cbmvax.UUCP (Greg Givler - QA) (09/05/89)
In article <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: > >I'm sure that we would have heard by now if the WB132.ZOO was not legit, >but I would rest easier if someone from C= would confirm that indeed, >this upgrade has been released. It just seems a little odd that there >has been no "official" mention of it. The license certainly reads like >a C= document ;-), but could someone please confirm? Thanks. > >Ned Schultz nschultz@polyslo.calpoly.edu I work for Commodore and I uploaded the version from Andy Finkel that is on CompuServe. So it is official. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Givler Q-Link: GregGivler QA Analyst CompuServe: Greg Givler 76702,647 Commodore QA (Software) GEnie: G.Givler 215-431-9100 INTERNET: givler@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Life is pain, Highness, anyone who says differently is selling something" - The Dread Pirate Roberts -- The Princess Bride ===============================================================================
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (09/06/89)
In article <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: > >I'm sure that we would have heard by now if the WB132.ZOO was not legit, >but I would rest easier if someone from C= would confirm that indeed, >this upgrade has been released. It just seems a little odd that there >has been no "official" mention of it. The license certainly reads like >a C= document ;-), but could someone please confirm? Thanks. The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards is so a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes. (like a virus, or ...) b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get any updates c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our legal department for electronic distribution. (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person) This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national BBS systems. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
aaalexis@sactoh0.UUCP (Andrew A. Alexis) (09/06/89)
In article <3199@bucsb.UUCP>, robertl@bucsb.UUCP (Robert La Ferla) writes: > In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > > > > > So much for Deluxe Nuclear Construction Set! > I was always wondering what happened to BombCraft... this may explain it. Another fine program bites the dust. The Amiga is YEARS behind the Mac and the IBMs in the nuclear software field. -- ############################################################# # Andy Alexis # UUCP: pacbell!sactoh0!aaalexis # # Regular Guy # Plink: andy*a # #############################################################
dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) (09/06/89)
In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: > >The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available >electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. > >The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards >is so > a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly > sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes. > (like a virus, or ...) > b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get > any updates > c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our > legal department for electronic distribution. > (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person) > >This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national >BBS systems. > Why doesn't USENET count as a "national BBS system"? Hell, if anything, it's better, cause it's International! I suggest that CBM send 1.3.2 to the binaries group, so it can be posted here also. Inc. -- "What is another word | Dave Lowrey | [The opinions expressed MAY be for 'Thesaurus'?" | Amdahl Corp. | those of the author and are not | Houston, Texas | necessarily those of his Steven Wright | amdahl!dwl10 | employer] (`nuff said!)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/06/89)
In article <7821@cbmvax.UUCP> givler@cbmvax.UUCP (Greg Givler - QA) writes: >I work for Commodore and I uploaded the version from Andy Finkel that is >on CompuServe. So it is official. A 'possible' reading of the LICENSE will conclude that only CBM is authorized to 'upload' (therefore limiting the electronic distributions to places they decide), while users are free to 'download'. Is this the intent of the wording of the LICENSE? -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (09/06/89)
In article <7056@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: < random flames deleted> Just out of curiosity, why bother to flame the license agreement in public, rather than send a note asking why ? You'd like the legal dept to say something like 'Gee, I guess electronic distribution of software updates is a bad idea after all' or what ? > > governmental entity and (d) in all respects is proprietary data belonging > solely to Commodore. > >A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but to think you somehow can >control it is even more dangerous, or at least foolish. They might >legally own it, but I'm sorry, there are just hundreds of people in >the government and out who'll probably dissassemble it to their >heart's content. As I (not a lawyer, but I have friends working in government) understand it, gov't employees working with software sign some sort of contract when they get a Federal job saying they will and won't do certain things to software as long as the software contains the proper notices. (I've seen the agreement a friend had to sign) I suspect the "hundreds of people in the government" will be quite able to determine the cost/benefit ratio themselves, since they know that they have agreed to :-) >advertising before 1.4 and the 3000 are ready with emphasis on the >Commodore name...... I've just gotta wonder.... >-- >Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS> hmmm, this may be the first vote I've heard for not advertising. I hope this isn't the start of a trend! :-) andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (09/06/89)
Definitely. It was posted in the BIX amiga.dev/listings area by CATS. They also posted the janus software there. Jim
ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) (09/06/89)
In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
<The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards
<is so
< a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly
< sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes.
< (like a virus, or ...)
< b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get
< any updates
< c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our
< legal department for electronic distribution.
< (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person)
<
<This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national
<BBS systems.
Well, that's all well and good, but it kind of leaves a lot of people
out in the cold, doesn't it? How are the 90% of the Amiga owners
without expensive network accounts supposed to get it?
--
Eric Kennedy
ejkst@cis.unix.pitt.edumike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (09/06/89)
In article <1799@sactoh0.UUCP> aaalexis@sactoh0.UUCP (Andrew A. Alexis) writes: >In article <3199@bucsb.UUCP>, robertl@bucsb.UUCP (Robert La Ferla) writes: >> In article <19682@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >> >> > >> >> So much for Deluxe Nuclear Construction Set! >> > I was always wondering what happened to BombCraft... this may >explain it. > Another fine program bites the dust. The Amiga is YEARS behind >the Mac and the IBMs in the nuclear software field. Just wait for a little while. I'm just finishing up "Ground Zero", your basic Nuclear Reactor control system. Still having a few problems with the neutron flux feedback algortithm needeed to control the moderating rods. It's a bitch to debug something like that. mike *** mike smithwick *** "Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
marksm@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mark S Madsen) (09/06/89)
It would be really nice if there were some reasonably straightforward way for us to get the updates over here in Europe. Not all of us can log in to BIX that easily.... One could develop hard feelings, reading about the restricted distribution of WB1.3.2 immediately after reading the message that says all of us "Overseas" types are just hackers who have no clue about creating good code, not to mention no table manners.... :-) So, C= ?? What do I do to get this update? Mark -- ####################################################################### ## Mark S. Madsen #### marksm@syma.sussex.ac.uk ################### #### Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK. ## #################### Life's a bitch. Then you die. #################
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (09/06/89)
From article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP>, by andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel): > The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available > electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. [Reasons for electronic redistribution restrictions deleted.] > This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national > BBS systems. I see your points, and generally agree with them, but I've got a few of questions. 1) Will the 1.3.2 upgrade be available through Amiga dealers? At what cost? 2) Is it allowable for me as an Amiga user's group librarian to put the WB1.3.2.zoo on one of the disks I put together each month for our group? (Probably not, but I want to make sure.) 3) Will WB1.3.2.zoo be distributed through comp.binaries.amiga or Fred Fish? I'm just hoping that I'll have something to tell the members of our user's group (officially registered with CBM, if that makes any difference) besides: "You'll have to subscribe to a commercial BBS service to get the upgrade". Whatever the answers to my questions, I'd like to say THANKS! for the updated software. I'm glad we didn't have to wait for 1.4 for this upgrade. -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!i-core!worsel!blaine (My Amiga running uucp) "Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC."
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (09/06/89)
In article <19439@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >Well, that's all well and good, but it kind of leaves a lot of people >out in the cold, doesn't it? How are the 90% of the Amiga owners >without expensive network accounts supposed to get it? from his or her dealer, I hope. This isn't meant to replace the old method of getting the software upgrade from the dealer (like we did for Transformer 1.2, or Janus 2.0, or Workbench 1.2) It's just providing another (usually faster) method for Amiga owners to get updates. (Actually, at $6/hour for GEnie, less than that for Plink, they really are not that expensive, especially if you use it only to get a software update.) (BIX is $160/year flat rate, which is a good deal if you want to post a lot, but isn't if you plan just to pick up a couple of software updates :-) ) >Eric Kennedy >ejkst@cis.unix.pitt.edu -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (09/06/89)
In article <1490@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: >> 4. Configure the Software for your own use by adding >> or removing fonts, desk accessories and/or device drivers. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Desk Accessories? Desk Accessories? > >We don't need no steenkin Desk Accessories! I don't know about that. I have this blotter type thing on my desk that contains a pad of enormous sheets of paper that I'd hate to give up. Then there's my pen holder. They'd just roll around on my desk if I didn't have it. What's that ? You don't mean those kind of desk accessories ? Oh. Never mind. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (09/07/89)
In article <c31802wv52X.01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >>In article <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: >> >>The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available >>electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. >> >>The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards >>is so >> a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly >> sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes. >> (like a virus, or ...) >> b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get >> any updates >> c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our >> legal department for electronic distribution. >> (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person) >> >>This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national >>BBS systems. >> > >Why doesn't USENET count as a "national BBS system"? Hell, if anything, >it's better, cause it's International! > Usenet is indeed international and I'd like to use it as a distribution medium, but... (yes, there's a but) a) Usenet news is trivially easy to fool. There's no real protection against faking senders, messages, or anything. b) as many net.lawyer.wanna.bees are quick to point out, a Copyright is probably valid on a Usenet posted item, and a license is probably not valid. ("You mean to tell me that they just sent it to you unsolicited ?" "Yes, Your Honor. My computer was just sitting there, and poof, there it was in the spool directory. I didn't ask for it or anything.") (perhaps this is one reason that the GNU software hasn't been posted to comp.sources ? Just wondering.) c) the international aspects need to be worked out; this can be done seperately, however. We're not on the internet or anything like that, so we can't use that method. I'm open to suggestions on how we can accomplish our goals via Usenet. > Steven Wright | amdahl!dwl10 | employer] (`nuff said!) andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) (09/07/89)
In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available >electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. > >The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards >is so > a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly > sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes. > (like a virus, or ...) > b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get > any updates > c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our > legal department for electronic distribution. > (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person) > >This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national >BBS systems. > > > andy >-- >andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy >Commodore-Amiga, Inc. FLAME ON!!! How do you expect loyal readers of this newsgroup to take this elitist crap? I have explicitly avoided these services(?) for financial and other reasons, now you tell me that the only way I can legally get this upgrade is to subscribe. BULL S**T. I can easily refute all three of the above arguments: a) Don't you know how to determine byte counts and checksums? b) If you got it on usenet, the same would apply. You say you lost your net access and therefore can't get updates? How about if you don't pay your Compu$erve bill? c) I want to know if Commodore really believes that this joke of a copyright is any more valid or enforcable when posted on one of these dollar drains than it is when posted here (or any other BBS). If so, I have lost a little more of what little was left of my estimation of the competency of CBMs management. And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to domestic use as well. Come on CBM, grow up. This is just plain childish. I have no more wish for nuclear holocaust than anybody else. But this is the wrong place to make this kind of political statement. If this clause is to be included in all future CBM software releases, you might as well kiss any hope of large-scale government acceptance of CBM products good bye. You can't hide behind the argument that you don't need the government and/or military's business since they won't agree to the "no nukes" clause, either. You can't hope to stay in business if you insist upon chiseling away major pieces of your potential user base with idealistic dogma. You say you'd rather go out of business than violate your moral stance on nuclear arms? If so, you may have just sealed your fate. See you in the unemployment line. (Oops, there's that Government again.) FLAME down to slow boil. I'm sure the intent of all this was to circumvent the delay inherent in the normal distribution channels for new software releases. But there are better ways of doing this. Consider Marcus Wandel's approach to commenting a disassembly of Exec without violating copyright restrictions on distribution of CBM software. How about a freely redistributable program which patches or otherwise modifies a duplicate of the user's distribution Workbench 1.3 disk to perform the upgrades. This would be useless unless the user had 1.3 to begin with. (If s/he were going to bootleg 1.3, that's another problem.) True, it would require more effort to generate this type of program than distributing the executables, but you would not have generated nearly the amount of ill will that you seem to have invoked. I had more I wanted to say, but I'm so mad right now I can't remember what it was. 8-( Phil Disclaimer - This is not intended as a personal attack on Andy Finkel. I recognize that Andy has no recourse but to implement company policy. Therefore, consider these attacks (however ineffective they may be) to be directed to CBM and it's legal department. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Staub, phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM Definition: BUG: A feature (present or absent) which is (at best) inconvenient.
dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) (09/07/89)
In article <7847@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <c31802wv52X.01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >>In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >>>In article <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: >>> >>>The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available >>>electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. >>> >>>The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards >>>is so >>> a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly >>> sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes. >>> (like a virus, or ...) >>> b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get >>> any updates >>> c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our >>> legal department for electronic distribution. >>> (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person) >>> >>>This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national >>>BBS systems. >>> >> >>Why doesn't USENET count as a "national BBS system"? Hell, if anything, >>it's better, cause it's International! >> > >Usenet is indeed international and I'd like to use >it as a distribution medium, but... >(yes, there's a but) > >a) Usenet news is trivially easy to fool. There's no real > protection against faking senders, messages, or anything. You (Commodore) can post checksums, etc. I know that that could be fooled with also, but at least it's some protection. > >b) as many net.lawyer.wanna.bees are quick to point out, a > Copyright is probably valid on a Usenet posted item, and > a license is probably not valid. > >("You mean to tell me that they just sent it to you unsolicited ?" > "Yes, Your Honor. My computer was just sitting there, and poof, > there it was in the spool directory. I didn't ask for it or anything.") > >(perhaps this is one reason that the GNU software hasn't been posted > to comp.sources ? Just wondering.) > The code could be "shrink wrapped" by uuencoding it. In front of the uuencoded stuff, would be the license agreement with the indication that "by uudecoding this, you agree to the above license....." -- "What is another word | Dave Lowrey | [The opinions expressed MAY be for 'Thesaurus'?" | Amdahl Corp. | those of the author and are not | Houston, Texas | necessarily those of his Steven Wright | amdahl!dwl10 | employer] (`nuff said!)
plouff@levers.enet.dec.com (09/07/89)
Yeesh. So many gripes! Why don't we all agree that the license agreement will provide job security to some lawyer, and is pretty meaningless to the rest of us. After all, what other computer you gonna run WB 1.3.2 on? Maybe we should sic Jerry Pournelle on this license... ;-) ;-) Commodore has actually done a Good Thing here, attempting electronic updates of the operating system _at all_. Given the current hysteria over viruses and other software gremlins, the distribution policy seems prudent. Of course, copies will make their way around through chains of trusted friends. There are even other options: 1. Remember that card that came in your Enhancer kit? Fill it out, send $10 and your "defective" WB master disk back to Commodore, and get an upgrade. 2. Buy a new Enhancer kit at your favorite software emporium. Oops, the box is not marked any different from the original 1.3 kits. And the one I bought a couple of weeks ago for my brother has a little sticker on the Workbench disk saying "vers. 1.3.1." 3. Wait for the official announcement of the upgrade available through dealers. Um, what's missing here is a coherent program, IMO. Now that the cat is out of the electronic bag, let's hope that the more traditional distribution channels fall in line soon, and with some reasonable notification to us users. Wes Plouff -- plouff%levers.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com (signature out for refurbishing)
ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) (09/07/89)
In article <7843@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <19439@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >>How are the 90% of the Amiga owners >>without expensive network accounts supposed to get it? >from his or her dealer, I hope. Ah... thank you. That's what I was getting at. In all the discussion about wb 1.3.2, I never heard anyone say that. I kind of figured that was the case, but nobody *said* that was the case. Is it legal to get copies from someone else, say, from a friend? How about for a user group to distribute it for the usual media/handling fees? -- Eric Kennedy ejkst@cis.unix.pitt.edu
esker@abaa.uucp (Lawrence Esker) (09/07/89)
In article <19439@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: ><The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards ><is so... > >Well, that's all well and good, but it kind of leaves a lot of people >out in the cold, doesn't it? How are the 90% of the Amiga owners >without expensive network accounts supposed to get it? Come on, quit bellyaching. Compuserve cost nothing to join, has no monthy fees, and has lots of phone numbers to avoid extra cost charges that computer connection links like TymNet wants to add. Most modems include applications. Even if the only thing you do is join to download WB 1.3.2, its not going to hurt that bad. A direct connect with a 2400 baud modem and Quick-B protocol gives about 60 kbytes per dollar. Other protocols are about 40 kbytes per dollar. Cut the numbers in half for a 1200 baud modem. But, I must agree that the Commodore solution does not help the non American customers. -- ---------- Lawrence W. Esker ---------- Modern Amish: Thou shalt not need any computer that is not IBM compatible. UseNet Path: __!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!abaa!esker == esker@abaa.UUCP
nraoaoc@nmtsun.nmt.edu (NRAO Array Operations Center) (09/07/89)
In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: (many points I have no opinion about) > >And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, >I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to >domestic use as well. .... (many more points I have no opinion about) I think the "not for use to design nuclear weapons" stuff is just part of the "boilerplate" designed by some lawyer to insure that there is no collision with export liscensing regulations. I thought such things only covered hardware, but, it is sort of unclear. You can get in big trouble that can tie things up for years if you run afoul of these regulations. So, it seems to me to be an obvious thing for a company lawyer to write to help justify his existance. (Sorry if someone already made this point. I have followed this discussion sporaticaly, hoping to find out how I can get the update at no cost at with no effort.) Pat Palmer
dbk@teroach.UUCP (Dave Kinzer) (09/07/89)
This started out as a mail response, but I think it is time to revisit this subject in general. The original poster is Phil Staub. In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> you write: > >I had more I wanted to say, but I'm so mad right now I can't remember what >it was. 8-( > Time for you to go back and read the netequitte posting. There is no excuse to post while you are angry. The people at Commodore provide support on this network out of the goodness of their heart. They are NOT required to do so in any fashion. Not legally, not morally, and (most importantly) not as a part of their job description. What you get here is not an official support channel of Commodore. They exist elsewhere, and include writing letters. All it takes for Andy, Dave, Randy, Caraloyn, or the rest of the crew (sorry, brain fade here) to discontinue this service to us is to type one character. Think about it, 'U' - unsubscribe, your support just ended. What you get here is not exactly free. It may not cost you any out of pocket dollars (though someone is paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars) the price you pay is to be respectful, considerate, and understanding. If you are not willing to do that, you may lose this for not only yourself, but everyone else. In that case, the price you pay will be ignorance. You have a great resource here. Free, direct access to the people in the know. You don't get that from Apple or IBM, and that says something. Don't screw it up for everybody. ***** Now, as an example of how you could post constructively on the licence subject, take this as an example: The Commodore licencing agreement specifically prohibits running the software on a machine that is not an Amiga. Didn't IBM lose this battle to Amdahl some time ago? Does this mean that parts of this licence are not applicable in the United States? Was that so hard? A questioning response *likely* to produce more information, and not piss anybody off. * * * Imminent use of deathnet predicted. * * * // Dave Kinzer (602)897-3085 asuvax!mcdphx!teroach!dbk Opinions are mine. \X/ I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everybody at Commodore as well as the other knowledgable persons (Dale, Rob, Kodiak, Jim and others who will probably never forgive me for not mentioning them) for tolerating the noise of this newsgroup and still supporting those in need. I also thank (is this getting like a movie credit yet?) those third party vendors (Perry comes to mind) that offer support through this channel. Thanks thanks thanks. It isn't said often enough. For those of you who don't agree with me, email me your opinion. It will keep the group free for discussion of things Amiga.
pl@etana.tut.fi (Lehtinen Pertti) (09/07/89)
From article <c31802wv52X.01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, by dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey): > > Why doesn't USENET count as a "national BBS system"? Hell, if anything, > it's better, cause it's International! > Maybe COCOM prohibits exporting this "hot stuff" outside US? > I suggest that CBM send 1.3.2 to the binaries group, so it can be > posted here also. Inc. > We here in Europe without access to our BBS systems will be very very pleased. Pertti Lehtinen pl@tut.fi -- pl@tut.fi ! All opinions expressed above are Pertti Lehtinen ! purely offending and in subject Tampere University of Technology ! to change without any further Software Systems Laboratory ! notice
eachus@mbunix.mitre.org (Robert Eachus) (09/07/89)
In article <7847@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >Usenet is indeed international and I'd like to use >it as a distribution medium, but... {reasons deleted} >We're not on the internet or anything like that, so we can't use >that method. I'm open to suggestions on how we can accomplish >our goals via Usenet. One way to do this would be to set up a mail address on cbmvax which automatically replies with a copy of 1.3.2. If this is not satisfactory, you could require that the message send include specific text agreeing to abide by the license, or even not make the process automatic, but have someone check the requests and respond... However, the number of incomming requests might be very hard to handle. You might want to condsider limiting requests to user groups and dealers. (Ah! A new problem, would the user groups be allowed to redistribute? If so then the entire problem is solved.) Another idea would be to allow some of the Amiga magazines like Jumpdisk and AmigoTimes to distribute it. You could even get the magazines to bid against each other for "exclusive" magazine distribution rights. In any case, the license agreement is fatally flawed when it comes to system software. I have an Amiga 2000 at work with Kickstart 1.2 ROMs. Since, under normal circumstances, I only shut this machine down on weekends, I have no plans to get a 1.3 ROM (1.4 is another story of course). I also have an Amiga 1000 at home. How many copies of the upgrade am I allowed to make? I need at least six: work bootdisk and backup, home bootdisk and backup, and work harddisk and backup. When AmigaDOS 1.3 came out I bought two copies, one for home and one for work, but here there is no "purchase" involved. Do I have to download it twice? At this point I know only ONE Amiga owner who has only one Amiga, so I'm not the only one with this problem. Keep up the good work, and try to explain the realities of software to your corporate lawyers, so that they can write an enforcable license. (Assuming that you need one.) Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (09/07/89)
Ahh... a breath of fresh air in a morass otherwise infantile postings on the subject of the WB upgrade! I'm not CBM, but I can tell you what I have heard from a CBM person, and second hand from one who has spoken with a CATS person. In <1496@esunix.UUCP>, blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: >I see your points, and generally agree with them, but I've got a few >of questions. > >1) Will the 1.3.2 upgrade be available through Amiga dealers? At what > cost? It will be available. Disks are being prepared and sent out to dealers. This is true for Canada according to a CBM employee here in Vancouver, and is true according to a CATS employee. Indications are that it will be free (your mileage may vary, but if it varies too much, tell CBM about it). >2) Is it allowable for me as an Amiga user's group librarian to put the > WB1.3.2.zoo on one of the disks I put together each month for our > group? (Probably not, but I want to make sure.) Probably not... no different than any other CBM licensed software. The person who spoke with CATS said the answer he got was 'I doubt it, but I'll ask' (paraphrased). >3) Will WB1.3.2.zoo be distributed through comp.binaries.amiga or Fred > Fish? I really doubt this one. >I'm just hoping that I'll have something to tell the members of our >user's group (officially registered with CBM, if that makes any >difference) besides: "You'll have to subscribe to a commercial BBS >service to get the upgrade". Tell them they'll get it in good time. >Whatever the answers to my questions, I'd like to say THANKS! for >the updated software. I'm glad we didn't have to wait for 1.4 for this >upgrade. Hear hear! I'll second that. Thanks Commodore, for using the technology. <<< WARNING: flames ahead >>> This is for all the folks whining and pouting on the nets and BBS's. CBM has seen fit to distribute an upgrade between releases, a first for them except for the hddisk.device, and have decided to try a way that gets it to a lot of people quickly (over 10,000 on Compuserve's Amiga forums.. don't know the figures for the others), more quickly than sending it to dealers. They have decided to make it a freebie, something few other companies would do. Think about it a minute. It is the first time they have done this, and they are understandably nervous. (at least their legal department is, if it was up to the CATS folks, who knows what the situation would be) About the only thing you can fault Commodore for is not making it clear that it would be distributed to dealers, or perhaps for putting it up on the networks first. It's alays the case that any given item is available one place before it's available anywhere else. Look at the products that came out in Canada or Europe first (A2000, A2024), or the products that came out in the US first (Obese Agnus, 1.3, many more). I don't hear a lot of whining when that happens, yet here are a whole bunch of otherwise pretty good folks flaming CBM when they do A Good Thing, and do it free. This is the way to ensure that they will think twice about doing it again, so lay off eh? Flame them where flames are due. Don't leave them in their usual position of not being able to do anything without putting their flak jackets on. Indications are that the entire company is turning around and doing a lot more things right. Let's hear something positive as these things happen. Sheesh! -larry -- The Mac? Oh, that's just like a computer, only slower. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (09/07/89)
In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: >FLAME ON!!! >How do you expect loyal readers of this newsgroup to take this elitist >crap? I have explicitly avoided these services(?) for financial and other >reasons, now you tell me that the only way I can legally get this upgrade >is to subscribe. BULL S**T. > >I can easily refute all three of the above arguments: Your posting are usually more factual, Phil; this was mostly opinion... >a) >Don't you know how to determine byte counts and checksums? Yes. I do. So do virus writers. It would take a half-decent programmer all of a day, max to circumvent a byte count/checksum 'protection' method, even if we use a scheme that bitnet couldn't handle. >b) >If you got it on usenet, the same would apply. You say you lost your net >access and therefore can't get updates? How about if you don't pay your >Compu$erve bill? true. Usenet fits that criteria. >c) >I want to know if Commodore really believes that this joke of a copyright >is any more valid or enforcable when posted on one of these dollar drains >than it is when posted here (or any other BBS). If so, I have lost a little >more of what little was left of my estimation of the competency of CBMs >management. It is not a copyright. It's a license. The software is copyrighted in any case. As for the license, I prefer to leave the actual question of whether or not a license is enforcable to the legal types. Is the GNU license enforcable ? Is any license enforcable ? Who knows ? Until something is tested in court, you never are really sure. But, on one of the "dollar drains" its not coming to your system unsolicited. (a copyright is still valid in that case, but a license probably isn't.. like a letter, the sender still holds the copyright on the contents, the reciever owns the media.) So the answer is yes, its more valid or enforcable when posted on one of those "dollar drains" then when posted here. Whether or not it is valid or enforcable at all I have no personal opinion on; but it is less so on Usenet. >And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, >I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to >domestic use as well. Come on CBM, grow up. This is just plain childish. No, it doesn't. It turns out that little things like the export control act seem to apply only to, umm, actual exports to other countries Sorry if the idea offends you, but apparently the US Government has laws that force companies to treat customers inside the US differently that customers outside the US. Talk to your company's export people if you don't accept this. (or think about DES and Unix exports for a minute.) >the wrong place to make this kind of political statement. If this clause is >to be included in all future CBM software releases, you might as well kiss >any hope of large-scale government acceptance of CBM products good bye. You Look, as I said, it APPLIES ONLY TO EXPORTS. This probably won't affect US government sales, since its to comply with a US government act. And, as I also said, a revised license will be ready soon, and will be attached to the ZOOs where I've posted them. The intention of electronic distribution was to get maintance releases out faster to a good number of people. The other channels (like your dealer) still exist. You have a couple points: 1) You don't like US international laws. (we're can't do much about that) 2) you'd like us to do the maintance releases freely distributable as well as free. (most computer companies don't do either.) 3) You'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to be defeated by a byte count and checksum. (so would I, but I don't think it has a chance.) >Phil andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (09/08/89)
From article <7844@cbmvax.UUCP>, by andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel): > In article <1490@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: >>> 4. Configure the Software for your own use by adding >>> or removing fonts, desk accessories and/or device drivers. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>Desk Accessories? Desk Accessories? >> >>We don't need no steenkin Desk Accessories! > > I don't know about that. I have this blotter type thing on my desk > that contains a pad of enormous sheets of paper that I'd hate > to give up. Then there's my pen holder. They'd just roll around > on my desk if I didn't have it. > > What's that ? You don't mean those kind of desk accessories ? > > Oh. Never mind. Andy, it's nice to see that you haven't lost your sense of humor, even with all the whining and complaining that has surrounded the 1.3.2 release. Even with People Link's stiff rate increase (yea, they claim they lowered their rates, but that file transfer surcharge makes for a HUGE increase) it only cost a couple of bucks to download it. $2 is far less than I paid for either the 1.2 or the 1.3 upgrades, and both of those were the most reasonably priced upgrades I've ever bought for ANY computer. If the alternative to restricted electronic distribution is no electronic distribution, I really don't see what people are getting so upset about. Frankly I'm glad to see the 1.3.2 upgrade released, and that some form of electronic distribution was allowed. It looks to me like Commodore was experimenting here, and from what I've heard so far, they've been given little reason to try this approach in the future. :-( Here's hoping that they will condsider electronic distribution in the future! -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!i-core!worsel!blaine (My Amiga running uucp) "Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC."
armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) (09/08/89)
Ok, so I have an A1000. Will this update (1.3.2) do me any good? Or is it just in prep for the ECS? -George
monsoor@csusac.csus.edu (Matt Monsoor) (09/08/89)
I also want to thank CAT's employees for going ahead and posting software sooner than it would reach the dealers. I wish that I didn't have to wait for the local dealers to receive the upgrade to WorkBench 1.3 because I am not a user of the $$pay$$ networks! Maybe if Commodore does this again they might consider sending the upgrade to Registered Commodore Amiga Users Groups?! I'm sure our club would pay for the cost of the disk, mailing, etc to receive upgrades before the local dealers.
swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (09/08/89)
In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: :In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: :>The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available :>electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. [explanation of why] :> :> andy :>-- :>andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy :>Commodore-Amiga, Inc. : :FLAME ON!!! :How do you expect loyal readers of this newsgroup to take this elitist :crap? I have explicitly avoided these services(?) for financial and other :reasons, now you tell me that the only way I can legally get this upgrade ^^^^^^^^ :is to subscribe. BULL S**T. Hmmm. I don't recall Andy or ANYONE else claiming that this would be "the only way" that updates will be givein out. Check your dealer for more details. I highly doubt CBM has given up on the more traditional manner. [a bunch of refuting] :And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, :I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to :domestic use as well. Come on CBM, grow up. This is just plain childish. [some more rufuting- to this I agree] :I had more I wanted to say, but I'm so mad right now I can't remember what :it was. 8-( : :Phil : :Disclaimer - This is not intended as a personal attack on Andy Finkel. I :recognize that Andy has no recourse but to implement company policy. :Therefore, consider these attacks (however ineffective they may be) to be :directed to CBM and it's legal department. : :-- :------------------------------------------------------------------------------ :Phil Staub, phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM :Definition: BUG: A feature (present or absent) which is (at best) inconvenient. Sorry you feel that way about this bold attempt at electronic distribution. It sure beats Apple and IBM's methods- no electronic dist. at all. I would hope that calm reasoning with CBM would be more convincing to CBM that USENET is viable, not loud flaming. -- - Joel E. Swan [ swan@jolnet.UUCP <> PLINK ID: Amiga*joel ] [ "Amigas.... for the rest of us." <> CI$ : 74746,3240 ] [ "...peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:8 ]
rouaix@inria.inria.fr (Francois Rouaix) (09/08/89)
About WB 1.3.2 : Up to this message, I've seen almost only a polemic on the distribution of this new version. My question is : what has changed/what is new in 1.3.2 ? Is there anything noticeable, or are there only bug fixes ? #define JOKE_MODE lots_of(;-]) I mean, it would be nice if some gentleman at CATS tells us a little more about the contents, so we can start a new polemic on how they should have done this or that, and why they didn't, and... You know, the usual stuff here ! Don't tell me to wait until I get it, because I live in France, and with this distribution... oh no ! not again .... #undef JOKE_MODE -- *- Francois Rouaix // We are all prisoners here, * *- rouaix@inria.inria.fr \X/ of our own device * *- SYSOP of Sgt. Flam's Lonely Amigas Club. (33) (1) 39-55-84-59 (Videotex) * Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own, not those of my employer.
pfaff@mercury.asd.contel.com (Ray Pfaff - Oakwood 457 934-8162) (09/08/89)
This mail is addressed to Andy Finkel, but the email to cbmvax keeps getting bounced... Andy, just thought I'd drop a note to you and all the others at CBM who support USENET. Although I'm not too thrilled about not getting a copy of WB1.3.2 since I'm not on any of the subscriber networks (and don't have any desire to be), I really appreciate you being on here and I appreciate that CBM at least tried to release a revision that didn't cost 10$-15$ to get. I find it interesting that people on the net feel that it's some sort of legal right of theirs to get any kind of support at all, much less free support. Anyway, this is one Amiga user who is at least happy that you folks at CBM give us what you did. Ray Pfaff
pfaff@mercury.asd.contel.com (Ray Pfaff - Oakwood 457 934-8162) (09/09/89)
Lawrence Esker writes: >Come on, quit bellyaching. Compuserve cost nothing to join, has no monthy >fees, and has lots of phone numbers to avoid extra cost charges that computer >connection links like TymNet wants to add. Must have been awhile since you used Compuserve Lawrence, they now charge a monthly fee (admittedly small). That's why I canceled my account. Ray Pfaff
phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) (09/09/89)
In article <7850@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: <In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: <>FLAME ON!!! [ stuff deleted, some (but not all) of which I admit was too strongly worded ] <>c) <>I want to know if Commodore really believes that this joke of a copyright <>is any more valid or enforcable when posted on one of these dollar drains <>than it is when posted here (or any other BBS). If so, I have lost a little <>more of what little was left of my estimation of the competency of CBMs <>management. < <It is not a copyright. It's a license. The software is copyrighted Ok. Slip of the tongue. <in any case. As for the license, I prefer to leave the actual <question of whether or not a license is enforcable to the legal <types. Is the GNU license enforcable ? Is any license enforcable ? <Who knows ? Until something is tested in court, you never are really sure. < <But, on one of the "dollar drains" its not coming to your system unsolicited. <(a copyright is still valid in that case, but a license probably isn't.. < like a letter, the sender still holds the copyright on the contents, < the reciever owns the media.) So the answer is yes, its more valid <or enforcable when posted on one of those "dollar drains" then when <posted here. Whether or not it is valid or enforcable at all I have <no personal opinion on; but it is less so on Usenet. < <>And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, <>I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to <>domestic use as well. Come on CBM, grow up. This is just plain childish. < <No, it doesn't. It turns out that little things like the export control <act seem to apply only to, umm, actual exports to other countries <Sorry if the idea offends you, but apparently the US Government has laws that <force companies to treat customers inside the US differently that <customers outside the US. Talk to your company's export people <if you don't accept this. (or think about DES and Unix exports for <a minute.) May I (calmly, I hope) point out here that, last I checked, there were export restrictions on 68020 processors (or, as I recall any processor which runs at above a certain clock rate). There are, in fact lots of other export restrictions which could be construed to apply. Yet no mention was made of not running the new software overseas on 68020 processors. Without having the exact text of the license handy (I don't even think I've seen the entire text), I don't recall anything else being singled out *except* nuclear-related stuff. <Look, as I said, it APPLIES ONLY TO EXPORTS. This probably won't affect <US government sales, since its to comply with a US government act. <And, as I also said, a revised license will be ready soon, and will be attached <to the ZOOs where I've posted them. < <The intention of electronic distribution was to get maintance releases <out faster to a good number of people. The other channels (like your dealer) <still exist. Ok. This is where I really get to eat crow. At the time of my earlier posting, I hadn't seen *any* mention of being available through dealers. I think if you'll scan the articles posted prior to that time, it really wasn't difficult to come to the conclusion that the national BBS's were the *only* way you could get the upgrade. Probably foolish of me to come to this conclusion, but I did. (It still doesn't help much, though. My "local" dealer is 30 miles worth of city driving away.) < <You have a couple points: [] < <2) you'd like us to do the maintance releases freely distributable as well as < free. < (most computer companies don't do either.) This one I'll disagree on. I know that (at least on the product I work on) we do free Maintenance releases. New major releases are a different story, of course. If we make a mistake in a release, we consider it to be our responsibility to make our code work as specified for that release. < <3) You'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to be defeated < by a byte count and checksum. < (so would I, but I don't think it has a chance.) No, I'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to go away and not bother us any more. (8-(). Actually, my original intent was to suggest separate distribution of byte count and checksum information from the code itself, where the virus writer can't as easily tweak it to suit his evil goals. This means that the virus writer would have to make certain that his changes both matched the publicly known values *and* still remained a valid archive. Not as easily achieved, I suspect. (Of course, I admit a chronic lack of knowledge in this area.) < <>Phil < < < andy <-- <andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy <Commodore-Amiga, Inc. < <Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. < <Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. <I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. Ok, net-folk. Consider this as my apology for the strong language. Can I go back to work and stop answering the flood of mail in my e-mail box now? Regards, Phil -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Staub, phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM Definition: BUG: A feature (present or absent) which is (at best) inconvenient.
chk@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (C. Harald Koch) (09/09/89)
First, thanks to Commodore for making the software available. However, I, like everyone else, have some comments on the License Agreement: > THE SOFTWARE MAY BE USED ONLY FOR PERSONAL OR NON-COMMERCIAL USES >ON AMIGA COMPUTERS AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OR >REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT AN EXPRESS LICENSE FROM COMMODORE (available >from Commodore's Software Licensing Department). I am quite suprised that this provision got lost in the discussion? So what about the nuclear materials clauses; You can't use the stuff for ANYTHING commercial! So much for Commodore every being able to sell Amigas to the business environment. Now I know that the intention was to prevent people from redistributing the software for profit, but the words say "You can't make money using Commodore software without our special License)". Thanks. You just put my company out of business. > 1. The Software contains trade secrets and in order to > protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble > or otherwise reduce the Software to a human perceivable form. This is violated by a neat program posted a while back which added comments to a disassembly of the Amiga EXEC. I haven't seen the Canadian or American Freedom/Privacy of Information Acts, but I suspect that this clause is voided by the fact that you are selling the software to the general public. I believe that I am allowed do all of the above with any/all software I receive. Even if not, I'd really like to see an attempt to enforce this... >II. TERM > > The license is effective until terminated. You may terminate it >at any time by destroying the Software together with all copies. The >license will also terminate if you fail to comply with any of the terms or >conditions of this Agreement. You agree upon such termination to destroy all >copies of the Software. Ok, suppose I don't agree to destroy all copies of the software upon termination. Well, because I don't agree to this, the License is now terminated. Hmm. I guess I don't have to destroy the software then! (I know, I am being picky, but we all got a good laugh out of the entire agreement the first time we saw it...) >VI. GENERAL > > Any attempt to network, rent lease, or sublicense the Software > or to transfer any of the rights, duties or obligations under this > Agreement is void. So if I sell my Amiga I can't sell the software? Do I have to take the ROMS out too? In short :-) Don't worry about the Agreement too much. Commodore isn't trying to restrict your actions; they are trying to protect themselves from the results of your actions in our modern times of law-suits galore.
ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) (09/09/89)
In article <1509@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: >If the alternative to restricted electronic distribution is no >electronic distribution, I really don't see what people are getting so >upset about. Well, I agree with this, and I have also been annoyed at some of the complaints about the electronic distribution. However, a major contributing factor to all the controversy (and the reason that I myself added a small flame) is that for the first 100 messages that appeared here on this subject, *not one* said that there was any other means of distribution besides the four networks. It was quite awhile (a couple days worth of messages, for me) before anyone came out and said that it would be available at dealers. Unlikely as it may seem, it *really* sounded like the *only* way to get it was to subscribe to an expensive network. Thus, flamage. This is not intended as a flame, rather, it is intended to shed some light on the unfortunate combination of events that led to some of the flames. I, and many others, are grateful that Commodore has elected to distribute a free update to the operating system at all. (When was the last time you saw IBM do that?) -- Eric Kennedy ejkst@cis.unix.pitt.edu
swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (09/10/89)
In article <1398@inria.inria.fr> rouaix@inria.inria.fr (Francois Rouaix) writes:
:About WB 1.3.2 :
:Up to this message, I've seen almost only a polemic on the distribution
:of this new version.
:My question is : what has changed/what is new in 1.3.2 ?
:Is there anything noticeable, or are there only bug fixes ?
[stuff cut for size]
:*- Francois Rouaix // We are all prisoners here, *
:*- rouaix@inria.inria.fr \X/ of our own device *
:*- SYSOP of Sgt. Flam's Lonely Amigas Club. (33) (1) 39-55-84-59 (Videotex) *
:Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own, not those of my employer.
Well, I'm not form CATS, but I hope this helps.
I see that this portion of the WB1.3.2.doc is posted all over PLINK to help
people get an idea of what WB1.3.2 update is. I can't belive CBM would
consider this info a no-no. I think it can only help.
This is only a small portion of the README doc.
;All of the following software, is
;Copyright 1989 Commodore-Amiga, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
[notice the software is Copyright, not the README doc.]
;The release contains new versions of the following programs:
;
;SetPatch, LoadWB, Eval, SetClock, Mount, DiskDoctor,
;Format, Diskcopy, FastMemFirst, NoFastMem, SetMap,
;CMD, ClockPtr, Pipe-Handler, Speak-Handler, FastFileSystem,
;Aux-Handler, version.library, info.library, serial.device,
;printer.device
;---------------------
;
;This is what was changed in each of the programs:
;
;C
;-
;SetPatch
; a) Alert code fixed to work with 1 meg chip ram machines.
; b) TrackDisk GetUnit patch added.
; c) DOS Execute() patched that uses RUN from the resident list .
; d) UserState patch for 68010.
;
;LoadWB
; a) LoadWB now closes icon.library.
;
;Eval
; a) () added; also parses strings in a more relaxed manner.
;
;DiskDoctor
; a) incorrect error message (out of memory) changed.
; b) uses BufMemType so works with large hard drives.
;
;FF : NOTE - NOT AVAILABLE FOR ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION
; a) incorrect use of font flags fixed.
;
;SetClock
; a) reset option now skips clock validity check.
;
;Mount
; a) BAUD and CONTROL mountlist keywords added for multiserial use.
; b) full option added to startup to create handler
; entries with full environment support.
;
;System
;------
;Format
; a) works with large hard drives (uses bufmemtype).
; b) inhibit logic fixed.
; c) secondary results are properly set.
; d) better error messages.
; e) only opens icon.library if it needs icon.library.
; f) NOFFS keyword removed (was not useful)
;
;Diskcopy
; a) uses fast memory in a single drive copy if chip ram is unavailable.
; b) single disk copy on a 1 meg chip ram machine works.
; c) verify by default; noverify option added.
; d) Only opens icon library if it needs icon library.
; e) If diskcopy fails, the failure cylinder is left showing.
; on the screen.
; f) secondary results are properly set.
; g) better error messages.
; h) MULTI keyword allows multiple copies of single disk
;
;FastMemFirst
; a) tests for chip memory properly (it worked fine before;
; however, it was incorrect).
;
;NoFastMem
; a) changed to also specific divert calls on fast memory to public
; memory.
;
;SetMap
; a) kludge added to make sure that, under V34Kickstart and below,
; a keymap never spans a 64K boundry.
;
;L
;-
;Pipe-Handler
; a) names are now case-indifferent.
;
;Speak-Handler
; a) no longer loses 10K when unknown packet received.
; b) OPTs are now case indifferent.
;
;FastFileSystem
; a) File system no longer fails if the boot block of a disk contains
; a zero in the first longword.
;
; b) Whenever a file not in the root was altered, the datestamp of the
; root block would be altered. This has been fixed, the last modified
; date is now altered instead.
;
; c) Due to a calculation error when writing out the bitmap the disk
; would always validate on restart if it was >308Meg. This has
; been fixed. New limit is REALLY 2.5 Gig. Tested to 600Mb.
;
;Aux-Handler
; a) Sets the flags to 0 on open of the serial.device.
;
;Utilities
;---------
;
;CMD
; a) works with device names that have odd number of characters
; b) QUERY functino added so works with printer drivers that
; query the printer.
;
;ClockPtr
; a) switched over to the European version with the 24 hour option.
;
;Libs
;----
;
; info.library
; a) no longer improperly combine tooltypes
;
;version.library
; a) version number changed.
;
;devs
;----
;serial.device
; a) no longer crashes on mismatched baud rate.
; b) Refuses to open unavailable units.
; c) Lower overhead.
;
;printer.device
; a) support for multipass printers fixed.
Hope this helps.
--
- Joel E. Swan
[ swan@jolnet.UUCP <> PLINK ID: Amiga*joel ]
[ "Amigas.... for the rest of us." <> CI$ : 74746,3240 ]
[ "...peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:8 ]c162-de@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (David Navas) (09/11/89)
>;Speak-Handler >; a) no longer loses 10K when unknown packet received. >; b) OPTs are now case indifferent. Hmmm, I remember another bug being mentioned about Speak-Handler. Specifically how it had trouble with lengthy strings sans punctuation. Is this being fixed?? The result was disconcerting as it would skip those big blocks it couldn't handle. >; info.library >; a) no longer improperly combine tooltypes Hallelujah! > - Joel E. Swan >[ swan@jolnet.UUCP <> PLINK ID: Amiga*joel ] >[ "Amigas.... for the rest of us." <> CI$ : 74746,3240 ] >[ "...peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:8 ] David C. Navas c162-de@zooey "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (consp11) (09/11/89)
Another bug in 1.3 that I hope to see fixed by 1.4 (and hoping it's already been fixed in 1.3.2) is a big one. If you eject a disk incorrectly, the system hangs. It never notices disk insertion or removal again, no windows can be closed and no menus can be activated (though the mouse still moves, etc.). And it doesn't give a GURU. I'm not terribly deep into the different devices, but it seems like a trackdisk.device error to me. --Brett Kessler
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/11/89)
<c31802wv52X.01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <7847@cbmvax.UUCP> <32Qs020H53F101@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Sender: Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. Keywords: legit? In article <32Qs020H53F101@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >In article <7847@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >>b) as many net.lawyer.wanna.bees are quick to point out, a >> Copyright is probably valid on a Usenet posted item, and >> a license is probably not valid. >> >>("You mean to tell me that they just sent it to you unsolicited ?" >> "Yes, Your Honor. My computer was just sitting there, and poof, >> there it was in the spool directory. I didn't ask for it or anything.") >The code could be "shrink wrapped" by uuencoding it. In front of >the uuencoded stuff, would be the license agreement with the indication >that "by uudecoding this, you agree to the above license....." Also, it is not sent unsolicited. You have to set up your machine and tell it to recieve comp.binaries.amiga - Usenet doesn't just call up random machines and stick software on them. You have to request the group and by doing so you are in effect requesting all software that comes thru to your machine. BTW: the security: put a disclaimer on it saying that you have taken all possible precautions to ensure the integrity of the software, but can't take any responsibility as to the performance or reliability of the software as distributed through this medium (usenet). --- Another Idea: Place it in a ftp-able site that you know is secure, and to a mail-server such as the kilowatt server. You should be as safe from tampering there as putting it on compuserve or genie. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 If you've seen one nuclear war, you've seen them all.
bear@bucsb.UUCP (Blair M. Burtan) (09/11/89)
In article <7843@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <19439@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >>Well, that's all well and good, but it kind of leaves a lot of people >>out in the cold, doesn't it? How are the 90% of the Amiga owners >>without expensive network accounts supposed to get it? > Maybe some kind soul could post the archive file here on the net? Yeah, I know, call me crazy. - Bear -- ----------- Signature Version 0.5 (aka Fine, be that way. )----------------- bear@bucsb.bu.edu bear@bucsf.bu.edu bear@buengf.bu.edu bear@bu-pub.bu.edu enge05c@buacca.bu.edu (Short enough for you?)
detert@lognet2.af.mil (CMS David K. Detert) (09/12/89)
Please disregard my PS to my previous post about a problem I had with mount. Someone already pointed out that I simply need to add a priority line to my mount list. I noticed this in the docs, but I must have been day dreaming because it's meaning completely went by me. Cheers, Dave CMSgt David K Detert, USAF MILNET: detert@lognet2.af.mil
urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (09/13/89)
I got my copy third hand or so, so I'll have to trust its clean.
I compliment C+= froor making ithe update available, so this is not
meant as a flame. However I do have several observations
There are supposedly over 1 million Amigas out there. But what
portion of their owners have net access or camp on their dealers
doorstep, so that they find out about the existance of the update
and its availability at the dealer. I think the existance of
WB 1.3.2 should be advertised by C= in ads in the magazines.
MS sometimes has/had ads announcing updates (not whole new versions)
with short descriptions of features. I think this makes a good
low key ad promoting the idea "we are making improvements, we
support, we care"
In the discussion of the cost of downloading from the commercial
networks, were the costs of the telephone call included as well
as the charges from the commercial BBS??? The fi$ amounts $3. or so
doesn't look like it would cover the cost of the telphone call.
Even it there is a communications concentrator involved this wouldn't
work for someone not in a Metropolis.
When did new Amigas begin shipping with the new WB 1.3.2? So when
will machines with new software and documentation begin showing
up in stores?
Are dealers obligated to get copies of 1.3.2? or will it be
automatically shipped to all dealers? and are they obligated to
make WB 1.3.2 available "free of charge" or for no more than $??
Again C= needs to be patted on the back for deciding to make WB 1.3.2
available as soon as possible, But a clarification of the details
would be nice to have.
P.S. idea. C= pay for the space to publish WB1.3.2 update docu-
mentation in BYTE and maybe an Amiga specific mag. The paid space
in BYTE would be an advertisement in a "hostile" environment.
Yet since it would probably sell copies of BYTE they might give
C= a good rate. It might also shake up the software industry wrt
new ideas on providing support and documentation. (semi smileys)
If you want to flame me wait a couple of weeks since otherwise
your flames will not be seen by me. They will die of old age
before I return from vacation. Toronto here I come.
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet
or urjlew@uncvm1.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
tel. (919)-962-9107ph274cc@pyr.gatech.EDU (F3 C. CLEVELAND) (09/14/89)
In article <1141@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
)Also, it is not sent unsolicited. You have to set up your machine and tell it
)to recieve comp.binaries.amiga - Usenet doesn't just call up random machines
)and stick software on them. You have to request the group and by doing so you
)are in effect requesting all software that comes thru to your machine.
Wrong, John. Generally speaking you can set things up so that cancel messages
are ignored for newsgroups and replaced with a mail message to whoever runs
things on your machine to the effect that they might want to consider dropping
that group, but create-group control messages generally only result in a mail
message to the effect that the group has already been created.
If you have set your system up to refuse all comp. or all comp.binaries.
postings I don't think it will automatically create comp.binaries.amiga just
because some bozo sent out a create-group message, but otherwise you pretty
much get it without asking for it.
You tell the net what you don't want. You get everything else. Whether it
existed before or not.fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) (09/14/89)
In article <6097@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: >In article <7850@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: ><3) You'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to be defeated >< by a byte count and checksum. >< (so would I, but I don't think it has a chance.) >No, I'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to go away and >not bother us any more. (8-(). > >Actually, my original intent was to suggest separate distribution of byte >count and checksum information from the code itself, where the virus writer >can't as easily tweak it to suit his evil goals. This means that the virus >writer would have to make certain that his changes both matched the >publicly known values *and* still remained a valid archive. Not as easily >achieved, I suspect. (Of course, I admit a chronic lack of knowledge in >this area.) There are a lot of very clever people out there writing viruses. However, I think you could make it hard enough to infect a distribution that they would probably not bother with it. I seem to recall a usenet thread a long time ago that concluded that CRC's were MUCH harder to replicate than a simple checksum. Combine that with a simple encryption scheme (compress is a form of encryption for our purposes) and file packing program with a known structure to match and specific byte counts, and things get even harder. For example, take all the files, stick them in a zoo archive (this is where compression comes in), and publish the CRC's and byte counts for each of the files as well as the archive as a whole. Your infector would have to ensure that: (1) All the file byte counts and CRC's match after extraction from the zoo archive. (2) The zoo archive structure is maintained and it's CRC and byte count matches. (3) No noticable bugs are introduced in the files and no functionality is reduced. It might even be harder is you precompress each file before sticking them in a zoo archive, and then publish both the before and after CRC's and byte counts. Anyway, a crypto expert would probably tell you that there are enough holes in this scheme to drive a truck through. But I bet your average casual hacker would have more luck breaking into my safty deposit box than infecting an electronic distribution protected with even a few such locks. -Fred -- # Fred Fish, 1835 E. Belmont Drive, Tempe, AZ 85284, USA # 1-602-491-0048 asuvax!{nud,mcdphx}!estinc!fnf
rodd@dasys1.UUCP (Rod Dorman) (09/15/89)
>Why doesn't USENET count as a "national BBS system"? Hell, if anything, >it's better, cause it's International! >I suggest that CBM send 1.3.2 to the binaries group, so it can be >posted here also. Inc. I'm not subscribed to any of the $ burning systems so if we're taking votes on this subject I'd like to see it on comp.binaries.amiga also. -- Rod -- Rod Dorman rodd@dasys1.uucp Big Electric Cat Public Unix "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't"
detert@lognet2.af.mil (CMS David K. Detert) (09/17/89)
Okay folks, I posted a message a day or so ago about the ethics of mailing U UUEncoded copies of the WorkBench upgrade to folks on the net. I did not offer to be a worldwide distribution point. I don't think it's too much to ask folks in the states to at least CHECK with some friends and friends' friends to see if someone will download it for a couple of bucks. I only asked because someone from overseas asked me about it. I wonder just how many requests I'd get though???? NO, NO, I domn't want to know. :^):^). Cheers, Dave CMSgt David K Detert, USAF MILNET: detert@lognet2.af.mil
bayha@isaak.UUCP (Ralf Bayha) (09/25/89)
All these statements about WB 1.3.2 are fine.
But how can I manage to get the 1.3.2 over here in Germany
especially if I can't ftp ?
The local dealers even didn't know anything about release 1.3.2
("1.3.2 ??? What's that ? Where can I get it ?")
Any answer to these questions are welcome.
Thanks
Ralf
--
Ralf Bayha Domain: bayha@isaak.isa.de
ISA GmbH UUCP: bayha@isaak.uucp
Azenberstr. 35 Bang: ...!uunet!unido!isaak!bayha
7000 Stuttgart 1 (West-Germany) BITNET: bayha%isaak.uucp@unido.bitnetandrew@teslab.lab.OZ (Andrew Phillips 289 8712) (09/27/89)
In article <226@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >There are a lot of very clever people out there writing viruses. However, >I think you could make it hard enough to infect a distribution that they >would probably not bother with it. Using a public-key encryption system could ensure that any release you got was the real thing. Commodore would encrypt the software using their secret key. If you can decrypt it correctly using their public key then you can be certain that it hasn't been tampered with. Does anyone know if there is any source available for public-key encryption around. I know that certain security agencies have tried to inhibit the adoption of such systems. Personally, I think that the benefits (as shown above) to society of totally secure public-key encryption would far outway any disadvantages. Andrew. -- -- Andrew Phillips (andrew@teslab.lab.oz{.au}) Ph. +61 (Aust) 2 (Sydney) 289 8712
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (09/30/89)
In article <193@teslab.lab.OZ> andrew@teslab.lab.OZ writes: >Does anyone know if there is any source available for public-key >encryption around. I know that certain security agencies have tried >to inhibit the adoption of such systems. Personally, I think that >the benefits (as shown above) to society of totally secure public-key >encryption would far outway any disadvantages. I think a lot of people don't realize that to do a public-key encryption of nontrivial files, at least by RSA, requires an enormous amount of computation. I believe the Internet steering committee has decided to push public-key encryption for *keys* (this is for email), where the decryption of a public key results in a DES key to decrypt the message bodies. I presume that the NSA would not have pushed DES if they could not break it. I think that was a prudent thing for them to do. (flames on that remark via email or to /dev/null please) -- -- uunet!sugar!karl "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that -- flags do not wave in a vacuum." -- Arthur C. Clarke -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) (10/01/89)
In article <193@teslab.lab.OZ> andrew@teslab.lab.OZ writes: >Using a public-key encryption system could ensure that any release you >got was the real thing. Commodore would encrypt the software using their >secret key. If you can decrypt it correctly using their public key then >you can be certain that it hasn't been tampered with. I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of this; maybe I just don't know all the ins and outs of encryption. Wouldn't it be possible for the industrious virus-producer to decrypt the software, infect it, and then encrypt it again in such a way that the public key will still retrieve it? /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Never hold down the "k" key. It tends to put | Steve King (312) 991-8056 | | a lot of "k"s on the screen. | ...uunet!motcid!king | | | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek | \-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (10/02/89)
In article <188@grape3.UUCP> king@grape3.UUCP (Steven King) writes: >In article <193@teslab.lab.OZ> andrew@teslab.lab.OZ writes: >>Using a public-key encryption system could ensure that any release you >>got was the real thing. Commodore would encrypt the software using their >>secret key. If you can decrypt it correctly using their public key then >>you can be certain that it hasn't been tampered with. > >I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of this; maybe I just don't know all >the ins and outs of encryption. Wouldn't it be possible for the industrious >virus-producer to decrypt the software, infect it, and then encrypt it again >in such a way that the public key will still retrieve it? That is the feature of public-key encryption. It utilizes the fact that factorizing numbers with large prime factors (hundreds of digits) would require a machine like the CRAY Y/MP to calculate for a period of time longer than the age of the universe. Technically it is possible, but the number of calculations required is so large that it is literally unfathomable. The technique involves the use of very large prime numbers, one of which is chosen for the encode key, and one of which is chosen for the decode key. Only the decode key is published. The encoded message is a large number which has as one of its factors the encoding key. The decode algorithm only requires the decode key, however. It is a "trap door" algorithm, that is, the encode key only works to encode messages, and the decode key only works to decode messages, and since both numbers are very large prime numbers, knowing one of them tells you nothing about the other. So, to answer your question, no, it wouldn't be possible for an industrious virus-producer to encrypt anything in such a way that the public key will still retrieve it. In order to do that he would have to obtain a copy of the encoding key, which (believe it or not :-) is unrelated to the decoding key. Unless he has access to another dimension where time flows much faster (so he can place a computer there to calculate continuously for billions of years), he will never be able to figure out what the encode key is. There was an article published in Scientific American about seven or eight years ago which gives the mathematical justification for this seemingly impossible technique. I don't remember the date, but if people are interested I will go back and find it. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (10/03/89)
In article <193@teslab.lab.OZ> andrew@teslab.lab.OZ writes: >Does anyone know if there is any source available for public-key >encryption around. I know that certain security agencies have tried >to inhibit the adoption of such systems. Personally, I think that >the benefits (as shown above) to society of totally secure public-key >encryption would far outway any disadvantages. Sort of, you seem to mistake a key distribution technique (public-key) with an encryption method (such as DES). If you really want *DES* encryption then there are a set of sources available from comp.sources.unix that were written by a guy in finland. Check your archives or send mail to the moderator of comp.sources.unix. You don't really want to use something like RSA because you will have to pay patent royalties to them. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If I were driving a Macintosh, I'd have to stop before I could turn the wheel."
new@udel.edu (Darren New) (10/03/89)
In article <1928@convex.UUCP> swarren@eugene.UUCP (Steve Warren) writes: >The technique involves the use of very large prime numbers, one of which [ . . . ] > {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM Actually, what you are discussing here is the RSA public-key encryption algorithm. All should be aware that "public key encryption" != "RSA algorithm". Rather, RSA is one method of implementing a public-key system. However, I don't know of any other algorithm that gives the desired results, so right now the point is moot. -- Darren
bakerj@mothra.UUCP (Jon Baker) (10/05/89)
In article <1928@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes: > > There was an article published in Scientific American about seven or > eight years ago which gives the mathematical justification for this > seemingly impossible technique. I don't remember the date, but if > people are interested I will go back and find it. > > --Steve Yes, I would be very interested. Would greatly appreciate that date... J.Baker.
andrew@teslab.lab.OZ (Andrew Phillips 289 8712) (10/12/89)
In article <4247@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >I think a lot of people don't realize that to do a public-key encryption >of nontrivial files, at least by RSA, requires an enormous amount of >computation. Although in my article I did not mention it specifically, I was thinking of RSA. How long would it take to encrypt 1Mb on a 68030 do you think? I have no idea myself. Also I believe there are other less secure, but less computationally costly, public-key systems around. In article <125649@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >Sort of, you seem to mistake a key distribution technique (public-key) >with an encryption method (such as DES). I don't think so. RSA (a form of public-key encryption) has been proposed as a key distribution technique for DES. The reason is that full RSA encryption is apparently too costly. In article <1928@convex.UUCP> swarren@eugene.UUCP (Steve Warren) writes: >There was an article published in Scientific American about seven or >eight years ago which gives the mathematical justification for this >seemingly impossible technique. This article was reprinted in Scientific American's "SPECIAL ISSUE/Vol. 1, Trends in Computing" (1988) - which has at least a dozen excellent articles (although I don't like Scientific American normally). BTW the introduction to this issue, which talked about the future of computing, had a full page picture of an Amiga (page 13) showing a child using the graphics capabilities of it (digitizing a drawing and modifying it), although no mention of which computer was made, and the logos had been removed from the front of the machine for some reason. I'm sorry if my news responses are out-of-date but news takes a long time to get to Australia. (Actually it travels quite quickly, downhill, to Melbourne, but its then uphill to Sydney <:-) Andrew. -- Andrew Phillips (andrew@teslab.lab.oz{.au}) Ph. +61 (Aust) 2 (Sydney) 289 8712